Southern Baptists urge reporting of abuse claims

boston.com ^

[Morgana]

HOUSTON (AP)

[Mr Rogers]

“Why doesn’t the SBC simply issue a more strongly worded statement denouncing the Boy Scouts of America?”

Name any denomination that has reacted stronger.

“Why doesn’t the SBC simply use its influence to pressure Southern Baptist pastors to sever ties with the Scouts?...Then, on other hand, they claim if a Southern Baptist pastor showed up at a SBC meeting and said he didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity, he wouldn’t get two sentences out and they’d keep him out the meeting and swiftly move to marginalize his church within the SBC “

Probably because it isn’t a theological matter. There is ZERO tolerance for homosexuality in the SBC, but the wisdom of how to respond to a secular organization isn’t so clear cut. Should the SBC condemn anyone who stays in the military? Should the SBC condemn any church that uses Apple computers, or withdraw fellowship from any Baptist congregation in states that have approved homosexual marriage?

The SBC has rejected congregations that say practicing homosexuality is OK. That is a clear, theological choice. But how to live in the world, but not be OF the world - that is a challenge.

This thread was posted, not about the BSA, but about sexual abuse claims. Since the SBC can’t even get member churches to fill out an annual survey on how many members they have, determining who is a sexual predator is going to be tough. Most Baptist congregations will turn any predator over to the cops. Those that don’t...could be disciplined (rejected) at the next annual convention, IF someone reports it. But the SBC, unlike the Catholic Church, doesn’t have a top down organization capable of HIDING predators in the system - because there IS no system.

[JLLH]

You have missed the difference completely. Re-read the post, please. It speaks of matters of theology. Whether some churches allow Boy Scout divisions to continue to use their facilities or have members of a congregation who, through freedom of conscience, exercise their liberty to allow their child to be in the organization — has NOTHING to do with the SBC messengers insisting upon adherence by the local body to a uniform Gospel message as presented by the local church. There is all the difference in the world between the two situations!! The SBC will not allow a church to preach a different Gospel message and be seated at the convention - but do allow freedom of conscience on whether or not one chooses to participate in organizations outside the church body! Why would they not?? Why would anyone to be a member of a denomination which treated its members like the Zero is treating us?? You’re saying that the SBC refusing to seat messengers from a church which preaches a different Gospel should be treated the same as those which have members whose children are members of Boy Scouts or those churches which are attempting to minister to them through the use of their facilities? You can’t be seriously saying they are the same thing!! There is no “sponsoring” going on! Where are you getting that? From the Media? SBC churches may or may not allow their facilities to be used, but there is no money changing hands in some type of “sponsorship”! If that’s what you’re thinking — both you and the media are incorrect on that (not surprising given the media’s penchant for completely twisting things.) Neither the SBC nor the local churches “sponsor” (i.e. give money to) the Boy Scouts — so there is no sponsoring to discontinue.

[JLLH]

Great post, Mr. Rogers. I think we are both trying to get across the difference between freedom of affiliation of the private individual and a theological matter from the church pulpit. Silly me, I thought I was on Free Republic! Isn’t freedom of affiliation supposedly a conservative stance??